islamic-jihad-legacy-of-forced-conversion-imperialism-slavery

The Arab–Islamic ImperialismCONTRIBUTION OF ISLAM TO CONQUERED LANDSWe have already analyzed whether the Muslim invaders went to India (and everywhere else) for the purposeof colonial-style economic exploitations. Muslims deny that this ever happened. Islamic invaders repeatedlyattacked the territories of innocent Hindus; in the process, they plundered immense wealth, slaughtered a greatmany of them, and enslaved their women and children in large numbers. One-fifth of the plunder and captiveswent to the caliphal treasury. Once the Islamic rule was established, crushingly discriminatory taxes of allsorts were imposed on the unconverted infidel subjects reducing them to such misery that the Hindus ofotherwise prosperous India were begging at the doors of Muslims and selling their women and children tosettle burdensome taxes as early as in the reign of Sultan Alauddin Khilji (r. 1296–1316), within a century offounding the sultanate in Delhi. Still, others were taking refuge in the jungle to avoid the torture of taxcollectors.To Muslims, these were not acts of colonialism-style exploitation of the native people. Instead,these, to them, were acts of great social justice and egalitarianism brought to India by the Muslims invaders.Hashmi, succinctly present this paradigm of Muslim thinking: 386‘Muslims brought high culture to India. Fruits like water melon, apple, grape, apricot, varietiesof nuts, saffron, perfume, gun powder, mosaic, porcelain, pointed and horse shoe arches, domesand minarets in architecture, sitar and tabla and refined musical notes, horses, turban, leathershoes, stitched or tailored garments replacing dhotis and saris and sarongs (lungi), ice, rose waterand social egalitarianism were brought by Muslim rulers, merchants and Sufis to India…’Discussion about all these good or beneficial things Muslims brought to India is outside the scope of thisbook. It is, however, pertinent to mention here that these beneficial things had no basis in Islamic teachings;many of these had no roots in the Arab learning and heritage either (In fact, music, poetry, art, andarchitecture etc. are explicitly disapproved in Islam). Instead, those had been appropriated from the existingpre-Islamic culture and tradition of the advanced civilizations of Persia, Egypt, Syria and Byzantium, whichMuslims had conquered or made contact with.that,Muhammad Asghar, an author and critic of Islam, wrote in response to Hashmi’s hyperbolic claimIt is a good point that justifies occupation of a country by a foreign force for introducing certainthings the invaded nation did not or could not have. Can we apply the same logic to justify certainthings that are now happening in our world? The Iraqis did not have hamburgers and sandwichesnor were they wont to eating steak and other things the Americans usually eat. Nor were they ableto build skyscrapers, dams and other modern things. They were also living under a repressive andperpetual dictatorship for over thirty years. So Americans invaded Iraq to introduce its own highculture among the Iraqis. Their presence in Iraq now enables the Iraqis to eat hamburgers,sandwiches and they are also being taught how to build tall buildings. They are giving themlessons on democracy. In a short time, Americans would turn the Iraq into a civilized nation; itbeing a replication of what the Muslims had done to the medieval Indian people.Despite the fundamental difference between the two cases, Asghar gives a perfect reply to Tashmi’s bizarrejustification of the senseless brutality the Muslim invaders wrought upon innocent Indians. It is also importantto analyze the veracity of Hashmi’s claim about the high culture, social egalitarianism, art, architecture,musical instruments, and of course, those great Sufi saints that Islam had brought to India. A few questionsneed addressing in this regard:386. Hashmi, op cit130